[council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working Group

[Gomes, Chuck]

Tim & all,

Please see my responses below.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim at godaddy.com
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 7:55 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> 
> 
> I also think Bruce makes some very good points. But I would propose
> that all we need is a drafting team to put together such a response to
> clarify the intent of the recommendation, and to perhaps include a
> suggestion to staff on a wording change that maintains the intent but
> does not create undefined terms.
[Gomes, Chuck] Do others think this would be helpful?  If so, are there any volunteers willing to do this?

> 
> Forming a community wide WG sounds like some sort of policy endeavor
> and will require a lot more time.
[Gomes, Chuck] The idea of the community-wide endeavor was the GAC's recommendation to the Board.

[Gomes, Chuck] > I also believe it is less likely to
> come to a conclusion that does not attempt to change the policy.
[Gomes, Chuck] First, I have never thought that the purpose should be to attempt to change the policy.  Significant time was spent developing the recommendation and it was ultimately approved by a super-majority, sent to the Board and approved by the Board.  To change that would seem to me to require another PDP and I agree with you that would take a lot of time.  Second, in my opinion, the value of a community group could be to develop broader understanding of the complexity of the issues especially on the part of GAC members; if the exchange between GNSO, GAC members, ALAC members and other community members was able to create an increased common understanding across groups and was unable to come up with any new recommendations, I think that would add value.  It could be that a community group, would come to basically the same point that the GNSO did but this time with GAC involvement.  Or maybe some improvements could be suggested to the implementation plan that would not change the intent of the recommendation 6.  That was my hope in cooperating with Heather and Cheryl on this.


> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:09:52
> To: Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: New gTLD Recommendation 6 Community Working
> Group
> 
> 
> Thanks for that additional insight Bruce. It's very useful.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 23 août 2010 à 09:53, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
> 
> >
> > Hello Stéphane,
> >
> > I am not really commenting on the method that the GNSO chooses to
> reach a position on a topic (e.g whether you choose to convene a group
> with GNSO members, or a group with wider ICANN participation).
> >
> > My main message - was I think that the GNSO needs to respond on a
> matter that relates to GNSO policy.
> >
> > ie GAC -> ICANN Board -> GNSO
> >
> > Given the letter came from the GAC - it would certainly make sense
> for there to be a dialogue of some form between the GNSO and the GAC.
> Of course it is a pity this did not occur around 2006 when there were
> numerous briefings to the GAC on the proposed policy.  A letter such as
> this should have been sent to the GNSO Council years before.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
> >
> 
>